MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1939762329 · doi:10.7202/1030819ar

Évolution du statut nutritif des sapinières à la Forêt Montmorency entre 1967 et 2011

2015· article· fr· W1939762329 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rock Ouimet, Jean‐David Moore, Louis Duchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueLe Naturaliste canadien · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude avait pour objectif d’évaluer l’évolution du statut nutritif des sapinières de la Forêt Montmorency en se basant sur des analyses foliaires faites en 1967, 1988 et en 2011. La composition minérale des aiguilles du sapin baumier (Abies balsamea) a grandement fluctué au cours de ces 45 ans. Entre 1967 et 2011, nous avons observé une baisse de 5,7 % des teneurs en azote dans le feuillage, de 13,5 % des teneurs en potassium (aiguilles âgées de 1 an) et de 18 % des teneurs en magnésium (aiguilles âgées de 2 et de 3 ans). En 1988, les teneurs étaient en général beaucoup plus faibles que celles observées lors des 2 autres campagnes d’échantillonnage. Cette baisse peut s’expliquer en partie par le choix des peuplements visités, la hausse des précipitations acides depuis le début des années 1970, les épidémies d’insectes ravageurs et les extrêmes climatiques. Les teneurs en potassium du feuillage âgé de 1 an demeurent plus faibles que celles rapportées ailleurs dans la littérature pour le sapin baumier. La baisse des teneurs en potassium et en magnésium de 1967 à 2011 laisse croire à une perte de fertilité des sols dans cette région au cours des 45 dernières années.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLe Naturaliste canadienSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207